ABC v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON Decision No. /16 /95. UNDER The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to section 91 of the Act BETWEEN ABC of Auckland 83/94 0568. Appellant (Appeal No. DCA 140/94) AND ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Ac Respondent APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT The respondent has applied for leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of this Court issued on 16 May 1995 under No. 55/95. The issue before the Court was whether the appellant was entitled to lump sum compensation under the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 as a result of medical misadventure arising from transfusion of infected blood products contaminated with Hepatitis C. The Judge considered that the appellant was entitled to awards under the Accident Compensation Act 1982. The respondent has submitted that the decision of the Court was erroneous in point of law because the Court had no jurisdiction to make an order in the absence of a primary cover decision. The appellant opposes the application and in addition submits that if the application is granted then I should do so on the basis that I impose timetabling restraints and make an order that the respondent was to pay all the appellant's costs on the appeal. I am satisfied that the appeal raises numerous questions of law, particularly in relation to the transitional provisions of the 1992 Act on which it is necessary to 2 obtain a decision of the High Court. I do not consider that I have jurisdiction to grant the appellant's request to fix timetabling procedures or direct that the respondent pay the appellant's costs. The conduct of the appeal will be a matter for the High Court. I do know that in the past there have been a number of applications for leave to appeal granted to the respondent and that subsequently there has been considerable delay in the prosecution of the appeal. I consider that in this case the respondent should take urgent steps to prosecute the appeal and as has been the case in other appeals, should discuss the question of the appellant's costs with the appellant's counsel. Leave to appeal to the High Court is granted and the question of costs on the application for leave is reserved. DATED at WELLINGTON this 6 th day of October 1995 A W Middleton District Court Judge dc140-94.doc(rd)